drobert

I'm curious if using an extractor hood makes a difference. If it's sized correctly the extractor should replace the air 8-10 times per hour so that should eliminate I guess most pollutants in the kitchen.

Another way to look at the this is checking the health outcomes of chefs, given they spend much more time next to the stove we should see increased respiratory problems.

> Cornet has now begun his new job at Twitter. And while he is more hopeful about the company's ethical core, that's not prompting him to put down his pen.

So in the end money and status wins? Maybe he should make a sketch about that because less than 1 in 100 people would consider Twitter to be an ethical company. All in all Google has the upper hand of good delivered to the world compared with Twitter.

What's the meaning of life?

Blockchain is a technology in search of a problem.

Maybe as a storage of wealth it produces fewer emissions than mining gold but it's not the solution to the money problem.

Why it's still no 1 cryptocurrency? First mover advantage, a few die hard believers, many speculators and lots of FOMO.

Even I am reluctant to sell my 0.01 share of a bitcoin. What if...

When a much better solution comes people will sell it but for now the fiat-alternative market is too crowded with not much differentiation - to my best knowledge.

This is the first time I hear about the dangers of gas cooking. I have to admit I haven't read the whole article but from experience gas is much more pleasant to use. Excepting the fact that you have a nice glass surface that is easy to clean, cooking with electric is frustrating.

> The people most burdened by these impacts are those who struggle the most to pay for cleaner alternatives

I don't believe cost is the main issue, rather lack of awarness. I just checked, in Uk you find both gas and electric hobs for the same price tag - stating from 100 gbp.

The biggest cost of installing a electic cooktop is actually having dedicated wiring with a 32amp fuse. This is more tricky in old builds, it could require changing the fuse box and running new wires - a lot of mess. In new builds it is more common to have this by default.

So it's not exactlly a case of rich/poor but rather old/new.

People are objective driven so I guess money is an easy objective to have. It's easy to measure, boosts social status, gives you freedom, etc.

Until you have FU money it takes a change of attitude to forget money. The people you surround yourself are as well important. Just spend some time with some artists and you'll be more like them.

Parts of me feels the same since I moved to a big city where in order to own a house I need to pay mortgage until I'm 60 even if I'm in top ~3% of earners. I guess it's the stress, the uncertainty of our world, the competition, the ego.

What is good and what is bad?

There is a lot of nuance and subjectivity.

Also things are not static, they can go from good to bad and the otherway around.

My Bose headphones are wired and much bulkier and heavy. They are good if you do not move around.

The Adidas are much lighter. They are designed to be worn while you are active. You can even disassemble and wash them.

I know Bose has a wireless version but I don't own it.

Instant pot. It's a preasure cooker you can program

Robo vaccum. Many hours saved

Bose noise canceling. Especially useful on the plane or in a busy office

Dishwasher. Many hours saved

Adidas Bluetooth headset. Really got addicted to it. Has a joystick with 4 directions and great battery life and sound

Products that should have improved my life by barely did:

Nest thermostat. For the price, disappointing. Didn't seem to learned my preferences

UBI is only relevant if it's universal. Doing such a study on a small sample is rather irrelevant and inconclusive.

A better idea might be to do it in a village and compare with another village that doesn't have it. But even this cannot fully replicate the nation wide effects of UBI. How about immigration laws? Germany is in EU, anyone can move to Germany and ask for UBI.

Waste of effort and money to prove nothing.

Practically companies outsource the recruitment process to schools. To get in a top school you need to have passed certain filters so it is more likely that talent can be found there. It's applicable is any country not just USA and in sports as well.

It's a hierarchy building system that works but of course it's not perfect.

If you are presuming that untapped talent exists in lower ranking schools on a large scale, companies would shift their recruiting strategies because people from top schools require much higher starting salaries. Leading companies recruit from top schools to remain in the front.

The hypothesis that some groups (black, women, lgbt, etc) are systematically marginalised is not compatible with capitalism. While it has an element of truth due to the in-group preference (which a very natural phenomenon - even trees do it) in a ruthless market companies which discriminate are at a loss - they loose star employees and eventually their leading position. If huge untapped potential exists in the marginalised groups this would create a market opportunity: companies could only hire from these groups and outperform the others. I don't see this happening.

Like any complex phenomena declining fertility has multiple causes. The importance of each cause depends on the local conditions.

1. Easy access to contraceptives (they are easily available throughout the developed world) 2. Positive view of abortion (the christian world used to see abortion as a crime, now with increased secularisation more is placed on the mother's preference than on the fetus). 3. Pressure on resources (when having children becomes a choice, it doesn't happen 'naturally', people are less likely to bring a child into the world if they cannot raise it properly). 4. Education and career orientation of women (Educated women make less children, they finish school around 24, start their career and if they don't secure a partner by 30-32 their fertility windows has closed - even if biologically they could bear children, they struggle finding a partner to raise children with). 5. The marriage institution has collapsed (Marriage is the bedrock of children rearing - high divorce rates, divorce courts, normalisation and acceptance of divorce has made people less likely to marry and thus having the environment in which to raise children). 6. Culture - it's not cool to have children. Now it's cool to travel the world and find yourself and experiment with as many partners as you can. This culture is not conducive to child rearing. Movies, books, music do not portrait happy families. Today, cool is to be 'different'. 7. Religion - christianity with its marriage and chastity laws is dying out. Is is being replaced by the secular world where monogamy and child rearing are not perceived as something desirable. 8. Lack of social support - as people travel to find jobs they do not live with their parents. Raising children without the support of grandparents is much more difficult. 9. Low wage growth due to women joining the work force. One man could maintain a family with children and his wife, 50-60 years ago. That is no longer possible unless you are in the top 0.1%. 10. Skewed dating market. Women are desirable by men until they reach 30-32. After that few men who want a family would try to know and marry a women because she is less likely to bear children and this is not a priority for her. Women are under much pressure to sort out their careers, know themselves and start of family by early thirties. The education and career 'system' is not optimised for mothers. 11. Global warming and reaching peak resources. We have reached the peak point in multiple natural resources and are destroying natural habitats at an alarming rate. This makes people less likely to see a hopeful future into which children have a place.

To summarise, we live in era of tremendous technological and cultural change where we reached the limits of our planet's resources in the way we currently use them and this has led to population shrinkage in the developed world.

I think for men the incentives are different. If they succeed they have more options in dating, financial freedom, respect from other men, etc. Women get respect too but don't think more dating options (I would even presume the opposite). I met few women that are heavily into investments and becoming independent financially. Women value more relationships, happiness. Men are willing to sacrifice those for money and fame.

The fundamental issue at hand is sexual selection and the desire to leave something behind. It goes beyond societal norms and is buried deep into our biology.

> Men Wanted: For hazardous journey. Small wages, bitter cold, long months of complete darkness, constant danger, safe return doubtful. Honour and recognition in case of success. Ernest Shackleton

We had gender roles because it was the most effective way to survive and raise a family. The cost was that women were assigned rather basic responsibilities. Because tech and services have evolved families can outsource some of the chors done by women in the past like cooking, cleaning. In the case of making babies the the technology is still in development but we will get there. Artificial wombs will be an option in the next decades. Still the baby requires for the normal emotional development close contact with the mother. In the end the fundamental role of the mother to bond with the baby cannot be outsourced and I do not think that's desirable. Will there always be differences between men and women in the workplace? I think the answer to the question is yes, at least for women who chose to raise a family.

Fundamentaly that is a life choice. But now with more freedom for women there is more pressure for them to achieve.

Creating a company is hard, very hard. Raising a kid at the same time I believe it requires super human effort. I profoundly respect the author, she is a real fighter. But few women when given the choice would choose to do what she did. Feeding a baby in the car while doing research seems far from desirable for most women I presume. Then the question is why she did it? I will be interested to know her view, but I presume she really cared about her company and it was beyond money.

This is the price to pay for creating a company, Musk works crazy hours to keep his two companies alive. Female founders with a kid are under the same pressure. There is nothing we can do here to make it easier: the world of businesses is a race, a competition, nobody cares about you're personal problems: a kid, cancer, etc.

> I want to see a world where men and women, who make up equal halves of humanity, also make up equal halves of leadership. When that happens, I wholeheartedly believe that the entire world will benefit.

The push towards equality of outcomes is a dangerous ones as it creates expectations that are not realistic to be met. Given our biological makeup and the roles that derive from that I believe this is the not realistic. While I totally agree that women who want to lead and are willing to make the sacrifices required are making the world a better place, it is not for everyone and we should accept and respect that.